The first thing we
should understand about modern liberals is that they deeply hate the true tenets
of Christianity, which teaches the values of truth, integrity, and individual
responsibility. Many, being agnostics or atheists, do not believe in religion,
and therefore have no immutable moral values. Their values are subject to
constant change, and many merely choose values that most fit the way they wish
to live at the time. One has as much authority as the other in this regard –
there are no unchangeable moral values, as in Christianity, Judaism, and some
other religions. These kinds of liberal ideas lead to the acceptance of such
things as fornication, living together out of wedlock, having children out of
wedlock, adultery, and sodomy as moral "lifestyles." They accept as
moral activity the killing of unborn babies, and even the killing of many babies
who are born alive and healthy after the failure of late-term abortions.[1]

Modern liberalism is
responsible for the steep decline in morality in America
and the world during the last fifty years. With our decline in the belief of
individual responsibility comes socialism, as we witness today in the
"healthcare" bills in congress. And with socialism comes the erosion
of our basic human and constitutional rights.[2]

However, people seem
to have a yearning for acceptance that leads liberals into the world of
make-believe. They want to falsely change things to make their immoral acts
acceptable as proper and moral to all. These ideas lead to things that would be
really comical were it not for the harm to society they are doing. It is truly a
land of make-believe.

Many groups of
liberals want to change history, our dictionaries, our encyclopedias, and even
the Bible to falsely reflect their "politically correct" ideas. These
groups include feminists, atheists, evolutionists, and various liberal churches.[3]
Facts, truth, and Christian morality mean nothing to them.

Many churches have
caved in to modern liberalism and present make-believe religions. Such churches
have been influenced by several things – the strongest of which have been
Darwinian evolution and the homosexual agenda.[4]

Falsifying history
to fit their views has long been a part of the homosexual agenda. They
deceptively try to make us believe that great figures in history were homosexual
– from Jesus to George Washington. Our colleges and schools have caved in to
them and indoctrinate young people and children with their propaganda. They wish
to infiltrate our churches, the military, and even the Boy Scouts, and bring the
acceptance of sodomy into them. They want to even change our basic institution of
marriage between a man and a woman. The primary object is to teach that right
is wrong and that wrong is right.[5]

Feminists have
pushed for same-sex dormitories in colleges and universities, and in the
military. And even same-sex toilets and restrooms. They wanted separate men's
and women's restrooms eliminated. I suppose, to be consistent, they want group
showers, such as dormitory and barracks showers, same sex, too.

The feminist
movement has done great harm to our military. Now, they not only require
absurdity in our military services, but the brainwashing of our officers who
have some common sense; and the elimination from the armed forces of those who
have the temerity to recognize, even in private conversations, the quite obvious
fact that women, on the average, are not as capable as men in many areas of the
military. Our country is most fortunate that such "enlightened"
leadership did not exist during the Second World War.Otherwise, we would probably now be under the rule of some foreign
power—either Germany or
Japan
.

Judge Robert Bork
makes the case for the terrible harm done to our society by the feminist
movement.[6]
Performance in our military academies has been downgraded to accommodate the
women cadets.For example, men are
no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons, because the women are not able
to do that.Women cannot perform
nearly as well as men in the training programs.[7]

In Air
Force Academy
physical fitness tests, very few women could even do one pull-up on a
horizontal bar, so the women were given credit for the time that they could
merely hang up on the bar.Female
cadets averaged about four times as many visits to the medical clinic as males.At West Point, the injury rate of women in field training was fourteen
times that of men, and 61 percent of the women failed the complete physical
tests, as compared with 4.8 percent of the men."During the Army basic training, women broke down in tears,
particularly on the rifle range."[8]

"Pregnancies
due to sex during the preceding phase, Desert Shield, were the primary reason
the non-deployability rate of women was many times higher than that of men when
the troops were called to battle in Desert Storm." It has been reported
that ships have been recalled from missions because of pregnancy of female
sailors.[9]

The above
information about the absurdity and harm of the feminist movement related by
Judge Bork may also be found on this website.[10]

There are many other excesses of the feminist movement.[11]
They want to rewrite history. They want to rewrite our Bible, our dictionaries,
our encyclopedias, and our textbooks to reflect their fantasies. They want gender references
removed or changed to female gender. Sadly, their success has been amazing and
very destructive to our culture. Moral sexuality has no place in their thinking.
Sodomy and other sexual deviancies are now to be considered acceptable and
moral.

President Barack
Hussein Obama and his administration make-believe that we are not in a war
against Islamic terrorism. They carefully avoid even using the phrase, "war
on terrorism." They try to convince us that the Islamic religion is on the
same plain as Christianity, and should be equally respected. The liberal media
do the same. When the massacre occurred at Fort
Hood by the Islamic radical, Nidal
Malik Hasan, the administration and the liberal media started talking about
possible mental problems of the perpetrator, when all of the evidence pointed
toward the act of an Islamic terrorist. In fact the man's beliefs and Islamic
terrorist orientation were known and documented before the incident, but the
political correctness of the administration, and the military under our new
"Commander in Chief," left the man in the service and in a position to
do just what he had previously advocated. The shooting left 13 dead and as many
as 38 wounded.

Ever
since the Muslim religion of Islam has been in existence, there have been wars of various
kinds against the "unbelievers." Their "Jihads" and
terrorism have become a way of life for large numbers of them. It started with
their prophet, Mohammad, who was continually involved in wars to make the
"unbelievers" submit to Islam and Islamic rule. At one point the
Muslims had control of a good part of Europe, and they hate the Christians
because the Crusaders finally pushed them out of Europe. Christians and Jews are
persecuted around the world in Muslim countries. Even their own people do not
have basic human rights in Muslim countries.[12]
Our president and many in the country do not seem to recognize who and what our
enemy really is. This is very dangerous make-believe.

Some of the worst harm to the country has been by liberal justices in the
United States Supreme Court. They have changed and destroyed parts of our
Constitution to make it conform to their own personal views and liberal biases.[13]

From time to time, the courts necessarily need to determine the purpose and
application of certain parts of our Constitution. There is only one way that it
can be done so as not to reflect the particular personal views and biases of the
judges or justices making the determination. That is to construe it according to
the purpose for which it was enacted, and according to the intent of those who
formed and ratified it. It is that purpose which should control, and not what
some justice thinks it should be under current circumstances. There are many
ways in which the intent and purpose of a provision may be determined. Some are
debates, writings by knowledgeable people at the time such as the Federalist
Papers, laws and Constitutions in the states at the time our national
Constitution was enacted, and history. Great emphasis should
be placed on the plain wording of a provision.

Our Constitution specifically provides for changing it to fit current needs
and changes in our society, but that is within the sole province of the people
and their representatives – not the courts. But our Supreme Court Justices
have often usurped this right of the people, and changed our Constitution to
suit themselves.

The United States
Constitution specifically provides for and recognizes capital punishment in four
different places. Nevertheless, our imperial Supreme Court, in 1972, in the case
of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), held in a Georgia
case where two defendants had been given the death penalty for rape and murder,
and in a Texas case in which a defendant was given the death penalty for rape, that the
penalties were unconstitutional in these cases.[14]
This was a five to four decision. The case was unusual in that nine separate
opinions were written. This decision created such a sense of confusion in our
law that it appeared for awhile that the death penalty was unconstitutional.
Some of the justices on the majority side wanted to declare any death penalty
unconstitutional.

There was a great
outcry throughout the country, and by many legal scholars, about the usurping of
the authority of the legislative branches of the government, and of the people,
in the Furman v. Georgia case.Fortunately, on the matter of capital punishment, a solid majority of the
United States Supreme Court came back to their senses and affirmed several death
penalty cases in 1976. However, the cases together have left such confusion in
the law, with the many restrictions set, that we can expect the issue to be
continually argued in many future cases. The right of the people and their
representatives to decide these matters still remains usurped by the courts to a
large degree.

The worst mischief
the U. S. Supreme Court has ever done to this country and its Constitution was
the false and fraudulent invention of a constitutional "right of
privacy."[15]

The Right of Privacy
is not in our Constitution, is not supported by history or precedent at the time
our founders framed and adopted it, and is completely an invention of activist
judges engaging in deceit. It is an ingenious method of extending the power of
the court far beyond its constitutional limits. Since the "Right of
Privacy" is not in the constitution and is not supported by history and
precedent when the Constitution was framed and adopted, or when the Fourteenth
Amendment was framed and adopted, there is no valid precedent to determine what
it means or what it covers. This leaves it wide open for the judges to place
whatever meaning they choose in a particular case, and have it cover whatever
they want it to at a particular time. This is the ultimate in flagrant judicial
misbehavior, and is a disgrace to our Constitution and to our Country.

In their creation of a constitutional "right of privacy," the
liberal justices not only usurped the sole right of the people to make and
change their Constitution, they also usurped the inherent rights of Congress and
the States to pass laws upholding the morals of the community, and for the
safety and wellbeing of the people. A tracing of the history of this fraudulent
creation shows how insidious and nefarious their actions were. Their methods
used were underhanded and deceptive in every respect.

This unlawful creation began in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961),
in which the appellant was convicted
in state court of having various pornographic items which were admittedly
obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned
the conviction, holding that the necessary evidence for conviction was barred
because of the unlawful search and seizure. It also overruled a prior United
States Supreme Court case that held the opposite. Four justices dissented.

Now for real the mischief.[16]
Several times in the opinion this right against unlawful search and seizure was
referred to as a "right of privacy." Since these words are not in the
Fourth Amendment, they could only have been descriptive of the actual right,
which is simply the right against unlawful search and seizure. That is the one
constitutional right on which the case was based. That wording is not included
in the Fourth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution. There is also
nothing in our history or in the debates and papers relevant to the Fourth
Amendment that would support any right of privacy. It was a complete farce. In
fact the Fourth Amendment itself shows that it does not create a right of
privacy. Had the search and seizure been lawful, these same private items could
have unquestionably been used in evidence. The words regarding the right of
privacy were also completely unnecessary and entirely irrelevant to the case.
Yet the Mapp case and its progeny
would be cited over and over, creating "constitutional rights" that
were nothing but fraudulent fictions used for liberal justices to change our
Constitution to conform to their own personal biases, and political and social
views. Now we have a make-believe Constitution.

The next important
case in this fictitious creation was Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). A
Connecticut
statute was struck down that made it a crime for any person to use any drug or
article to prevent conception. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart
pointed out that Connecticut
had the law on its books since 1879. The case does not say, but probably other
states had similar laws. Yet this Supreme Court overturned the law, taking this
right away from all of the states and their citizens, with no sound basis
whatsoever. The non-existent "right of privacy" was extended a step
further. The Mapp case was cited as
precedent, even though that case was based solely on the Fourth Amendment, and
the Griswold case
was not. But the worst was yet to come.

The liberal
justices, having control of the United States Supreme Court, continued their
constitutional mischief, citing one wrongful case after another, building on their false
precedent set in the Mapp and Griswold
cases. It is not feasible to go into all of them in this paper, but the book, A Way to Save Our Constitution from Judges, on this website, goes
into them at length. I will comment on two of the most flagrantly wrong ones.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
113 (1973), was the basic case that declared a constitutional right to an abortion. It
struck down a Texas
law which was a typical law in the country prohibiting abortions, except when
necessary to protect the life of the mother. There were three dissents in the
case.[17]
Under their "right of privacy" fiction, the liberal majority held that
there was a Constitutional right to abortion, and struck down the Texas
law.

The following, from
Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade,
shows the basis of the opinion:

Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal
"liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause;
or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by
the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381
U.S. 479(1965);
...

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth
Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as
we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's
reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's
decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

We see that what the
Court did was apply the "right of privacy" as created in the Mapp
and Griswold cases to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Fourteenth Amendment is construed as extending the Bill of Rights, which
originally applied only to the U. S. Congress, to the states.

The majority and
dissenting opinions show that the history of laws against abortion in English
common law go back to before there was a United States. They were continued in this country prior to the time there was a
United States, and continued after our Constitution was formed. There was nothing in our
history, constitutional debates, or relevant papers indicating that those who
formed and ratified our Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment,
intended for there to be either a right of privacy or a constitutional right to
an abortion. All of these things showed the exact opposite. There could have
been no intention to overturn the laws against abortion in the states or
prohibit Congress from enacting such laws in the territories.

As Justice Rehnquist
stated in the dissent in Roe:

By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in
1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures
limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of
the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the
Texas
statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and
"has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." ...

There apparently was no
question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state
statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible
from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth
Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this
matter.

The people who
formed our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were learned and
brilliant men, and had they intended our Constitution to provide either a right
of privacy or a right to abortion, they were certainly capable of saying so, and
would have put them plainly in the Constitution. I consider them far more
capable than these liberal justices who thought that their minds were so
brilliant and illuminating that the Constitution should be changed to fit their
personal points of view. They were actually just plain frauds.

I consider the most
flagrant usurpation of the rights of the people to have occurred in Lawrence
v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In
this case the Supreme Court overruled a prior correct case, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 176 (1986), that upheld the right of the people to pass laws prohibiting homosexual
sodomy. Citing Griswold, and extending
the "right of privacy," they made engaging in homosexual sodomy a
constitutional right. It struck down a Texas statute that made such conduct a criminal offense.

This decision and
the language used show an utter disregard of the intent and purpose of the
phrases in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that a person shall not be
deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
There is nothing in this opinion that goes to the intent and purpose of those
who gave us our Bill of Rights, or of the intent and purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment. It is clear beyond any doubt that the majority is basing this
decision on their own personal ideas and biases and that they prefer certain
changes in thinking of modern times to our Constitution.

In Bowers v. Hardwick, the opinion by Justice White upholding a Georgia
sodomy statute that provided for punishment of up to20 years imprisonment,
stated:

Sodomy was a criminal offense
at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they
ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961,
all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbiacontinue to provide criminal penalties for
sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. ... Against this
background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply
rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.

In a concurring opinion in the Bowers
case, Justice Burger noted:

As the Court notes,
ante, at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient
roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been
subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization.
Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and
ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See
Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the
Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation when
powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the
first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6.
Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense
of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention
of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be
named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of
England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and
the other Colonies. In 1816 the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue
here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another
since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected
as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.[18]

When the Court
overruled the Bowers case and held
homosexual sodomy to be a constitutional right it violated all concepts of
common sense and legal reasoning to impose the personal views and biases of the
liberal justices in the majority.

Our Constitution
begins with the words, We the People of the United States. As President Abraham Lincoln said, it was intended that we have a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people. The rights of the people to
govern themselves have now been severely eroded by an imperial Supreme Court. This past damage to our Constitution could easily
be corrected, and prevented in the future,[19]
but the people have apathetically failed to do so.

Political
correctness and our make-believe world have also invaded modern science. I will
not lengthen this paper by going into this subject in detail, but I will make
some summary comments on three branches of science that have been strongly
contaminated by this modern liberalism. I plan to later write and post on this
website detailed and supported articles on each of the three.

The first is global
warming. For a long time many scientists have been saying that the
information being presented to the world that global warming was largely man
made, and that we could therefore correct or eliminate it by doing various
things, amounted to a hoax. Because of recently obtained information, it now
appears that a number of scientists have indeed been presenting fraudulent
information to us. Important information in this regard has been obtained
through emails that were obtained by hacking into the website and emails of the
world's most influential research organization on global warming, the Climate
Research Unit (CRU) at England's University of East Anglia. This is coming to
be known as the Climategate scandal. Some of our National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists also appear to be
implicated in this scandal. If this is the hoax that it appears, we have already
wasted millions and maybe billions of dollars on the hoax, and the leaders of
the global warming movement are calling for the expenditure of trillions more by
the world, most of which would be born by this country.

The second area is psychology
and homosexuality. Ever since there has been psychiatry and psychology,
homosexuality was generally and officially recognized by psychiatrists and
psychologists as a pathological mental illness, until the liberal and homosexual
movements of the 1960's. As a result of intimidation by threats and violence
against these organizations by activist homosexuals, in the 1970's homosexuality
was removed from their classification as a psychological disorder, and was
classified as normal activity. Classifying the vile and destructive acts of
homosexual sodomy as acceptable and normal was truly a pure fiction.

The third area is Darwinian
Evolution and Intelligent Design. Evolution, although it is an unproved and
improvable theory – particularly when it gets into the origin of life – has
falsely been taught in our schools as established fact. On the other hand,
intelligent design in nature and in the universe has been recognized throughout
history and by most if not all of our greatest minds in history. It is quite
obvious in nature to anyone who approaches it with a little common sense.
Nevertheless evolutionists continually fight having nature's intelligent design taught in our schools,
and have been very successful in their opposition. The reason they fight it is
because design indicates a designer; and evolutionists want us to believe that
everything that has occurred in our universe and life itself came about by
accident. These people truly live in a world of make-believe. In my opinion,
this fiction of evolution has done more harm to the Christian and Judaic
religions than anything that has ever happened. It is also one of the important
bases of atheism and modern liberalism.